It's one of the most common attacks in American politics. John F. Kerry,
the ultra-liberal junior senator from Massachusetts is trying to claim that
he is different from President Bush. According to Kerry, he is the only one
who isn't beholden to those dangerous groups who use their financial power
to influence politics. Already evidence is surfacing that Kerry has received
large donations immediately before the Senator has intervened on behalf of
the donor. That alone makes his claim is ridiculous on its face, isn't it?

The truth is, the rallying cry of John Kerry's campaign is just a rewording
of John McCain's idiot attacks on the First Amendment of the Constitution:
money influences politics. Neither claim is true, because both claims extend
from a very simple, but vital flaw. Politics don't follow the money; the
money follows politics.

Most individual contributions to politicians are based on party. Those among
us who appreciate the historical positions taken by Democrats, from welfare
to Medicare, vote at the ballot box and with our checkbooks. We give money
to the candidate we favor in the hope that he or she will vote our principles
wherever it is they serve. Likewise for Republicans supporting the War on
Terror and individual rights. Candidates affiliate with parties to receive
financial assistance in their runs, immediately associating themselves with
platforms and positions on most major issues of the day.

However, Kerry and McCain would have you believe that every politician,
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Communist comes to the political stage
with no ideas, no principles and no plans. These men and women, from Maine
to California, announce their candidacy with nothing more than a desire for
power. What they will do with that power is open to debate.

If you believe Kerry, et al, you believe that it's the campaign contributions
that are the ultimate determiner of the positions and even the party affiliation
of the candidate. John Kerry would have you believe that he would be a Republican
if "Big Oil," "Big Tobacco" and the NRA had brought him
enough money in the 1970s. George W. Bush is only a Republican because NARAL
and the Sierra Club didn't bid high enough.

Of course, this makes no sense. The NRA and Club For Growth don't support
John Kerry because he is an ultra-liberal senator who believes in stealing
money from those people who work hard to produce jobs and economic prosperity
and giving it to lazy welfare mothers and radical groups opposed to the Second
Amendment. Bush gets his money from sources other than NARAL because he doesn't
support "a woman's right to choose," not the other way around.

If Congressman Jefferson Smith of Virginia has received a high score from
Club for Growth for supporting pro-growth, pro-business positions, he's going
to receive pro-growth, pro-business dollars. When Smith retires, there is
a reason that one of his young staffers is often the chosen candidate to
replace him. An unknown politician, with no track record of voting, or supporting
the voting record of a former office holder faces an uphill battle. More
than anything else, the need to have financial support of like-thinking individuals
and groups is what makes it most difficult for first time candidates to launch
a successful run for office. Many current members of Congress, for example,
are former staffers of other Congressmen. If you want the money, you need
to have a position that draws the money.

These "special interest" groups are nothing more than groups of
individuals who have decided to use the power of numbers to attempt to sway
government. Like the evil corporations, PACs and other "special interest" groups
are not entities unto themselves. They exist because people have gathered
together, for religious, political or economic reasons to form them. There
is nothing purer, or purely American, than these often maligned confederations.

The First Amendment grants "…the right of the people to peacefully
assemble…" If the American people choose to use that right to
join any group that promotes any political position, that is their right.
If they wish to use the power of their combined wallets to support the candidate
of their choice, more power to them. Politicians on both sides of the aisle
should stop maligning these groups as somehow evil and wrong. They are the
backbone of American politics, and contrary to popular belief, their money
follows the politicians, not the other way around.